TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00405-CR

Reymundo Montiel, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

NO. CR-16-0379-E, THE HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Reymundo Montiel was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault 

involving his thirteen-year-old niece B.M. and two counts of indecency with a child by contact 

involving his ten-year-old niece Y.M. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 21.11, 22.021. The indictment 

also contained four enhancement paragraphs alleging that Montiel was previously convicted 

of four counts of aggravated battery in another state. See id. § 12.42(d). The jury convicted 

Montiel of all four charges and found that he had previously been convicted of two sequential 

felony offenses, and Montiel was sentenced to 99 years’ imprisonment for both aggravatedsexual-assault charges and to 60 years’ imprisonment for both indecency charges. See id. On 

appeal, Montiel contends that the trial court erred during the guilt-innocence phase by allowing 

the outcry witnesses to testify, prohibiting him from cross-examining B.M. about the contents of 

her juvenile record, and denying his request to question the prosecutor as a witness. Montiel 

further argues that the evidence supporting the enhancement allegations was insufficient to 
2

support the jury’s findings and that the trial court erred during the punishment phase by 

admitting evidence of prior convictions and allowing an unqualified witness to testify as a 

fingerprint-identification expert. We will affirm the trial court’s judgments of conviction.

BACKGROUND

Montiel moved into his sister’s home and lived with her and her children, 

including B.M. and Y.M. After Montiel had lived in the home for some time, B.M. informed her 

aunt Maria Garcia that Montiel had sexually abused her, and Garcia and B.M. informed B.M.’s 

father about the abuse. Around this same time, B.M. was expelled from her school and enrolled

at the Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program, which was run by the Hays County 

Juvenile Probation Department. After being enrolled for a few months, B.M. informed several 

school officials that Montiel had sexually abused her. Once the officials learned about the abuse, 

they called the police and Child Protective Services. Subsequently, Vanessa Paulini conducted 

forensic interviews for B.M. and Y.M. at a child advocacy center. The police arrested Montiel, 

and he was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency 

with a child by contact. The indictment alleged that Montiel had been convicted of four prior 

felony offenses in Illinois.

Before trial, Garcia was designated as the outcry witness for the offenses

involving B.M., and Paulini was designated as the outcry witness for the offenses involving

Y.M. At trial, B.M., Y.M., their mother, Garcia, Paulini, an employee of Child Protective 

Services, several police officers, and expert witnesses testified. After considering the evidence 

presented at trial, the jury found Montiel guilty of all four charges.

At the start of the punishment phase, Montiel pleaded “not true” to the

enhancement allegations in the indictment. In the punishment phase, several witnesses testified, 
3

including Matthew Grantham, a Hays County District Attorney’s Office investigator. Grantham 

was designated as an expert in fingerprint identification. During Grantham’s testimony, the 

following exhibits were admitted into evidence: Montiel’s booking sheet for the current offenses, 

a criminal history from Illinois, multiple judgments of conviction from Illinois, and a pen 

packet from Illinois. At the end of the punishment phase, the jury found that Montiel had 

previously been convicted of two sequential felony offenses and sentenced him to 99 years’

imprisonment for the aggravated-sexual-assault convictions and to 60 years’ imprisonment for 

the indecency convictions.

Montiel appeals the trial court’s judgments of conviction.

DISCUSSION

In his first issue on appeal, Montiel asserts that the trial court erred by admitting 

the testimony of the two outcry witnesses. In his second issue on appeal, Montiel contends 

that the trial court erred by prohibiting him from cross-examining B.M. regarding her juvenile 

record and by preventing him from questioning the prosecutor. In his final issue, Montiel argues 

that the evidence supporting the jury’s findings regarding the enhancement allegations was 

insufficient, that the trial court erred by admitting during the punishment phase exhibits 

pertaining to criminal convictions from another state, and that the trial court erred by allowing 

Grantham to testify as an expert witness.

Outcry Witness Testimony

During a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the State indicated that it 

wanted to call an outcry witness for each of the victims. First, the State informed the trial court 

that it intended to call B.M.’s aunt, Garcia, to testify as an outcry witness regarding B.M.’s
4

statements to her. Next, the State informed the trial court that it intended to call Paulini to testify 

regarding Y.M’s outcry to her during the forensic interview. During the hearing, both Garcia 

and Paulini testified.

In her testimony, Garcia explained that B.M. made an outcry to her by stating that 

Montiel “raped her” but that B.M. did not provide any additional information regarding the

allegations. Next, Paulini testified that during the forensic interview, Y.M. stated that Montiel 

“touched her in a nasty way” when she was asleep in her room, motioned to her private area 

when discussing where Montiel touched her, said Montiel put his hand inside her underwear and 

touched “it” with his fingers, related that Montiel also “swiped” her private area with his hand, 

and stated that Montiel touched her chest area under her bra. In her testimony, Paulini also 

stated that she displayed a drawing of a child during the interview and asked Y.M. to point to the 

areas that Montiel touched and that Y.M. pointed to an area that was “outside of th[e] line”

where the vagina was located on the drawing and to the nipple area. After hearing Garcia’s and 

Paulini’s testimonies and Montiel’s objections, the trial court overruled Montiel’s objections and 

concluded that both witnesses could testify as outcry witnesses.

On appeal, Montiel recognizes that article 38.072 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure specifies that an outcry statement is not inadmissible on hearsay grounds in cases 

involving certain sexual offenses against children if the statement “describe[s] . . . the alleged 

offense,” is “made by the child,” and is “made to the first person, 18 years of age or older, other 

than the defendant, to whom the child . . . made a statement about the offense,” and if the 

“trial court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the statement is 

reliable based on the time, content, and circumstances of the statement.” See Tex. Code Crim. 
5

Proc. art. 38.072, §§ 1, 2; see also Tex. R. Evid. 801 (defining hearsay). However, Montiel 

contends that the testimony from Garcia and Paulini was too general to qualify as an outcry.

Regarding Garcia’s outcry testimony, Montiel asserts that Garcia generally 

testified that B.M. said that he raped her but did not provide any additional details and that 

Garcia’s testimony did not show whether B.M. understood what the word rape means. Similarly, 

Montiel argues that Paulini’s testimony was not specific enough to tell whether an offense 

occurred. On the contrary, Montiel contends that Paulini’s testimony revealed that Y.M. pointed 

to the general chest area and to an area outside the vagina on the drawing used in the interview 

and urges that this testimony might refer to touching that the Penal Code does not prohibit. 

Accordingly, Montiel asserts that Garcia and Paulini were not proper outcry witnesses because 

their testimonies indicated that the statements from B.M. and Y.M. were no more than words 

giving “a general allusion that something in the area of sexual abuse was going on.” See Garcia 

v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88, 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); see also Reyes v. State, 274 S.W.3d 724, 

727 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d) (explaining that proper outcry witness is first

adult to whom alleged victim relates “how, when, and where” abuse occurred (quoting Hanson v. 

State, 180 S.W.3d 726, 730 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.))).

Trial courts have “broad discretion” when deciding what witnesses qualify as 

outcry witnesses, and appellate courts review those determinations for an abuse of discretion. 

Garcia, 792 S.W.2d at 91-92; see Rodgers v. State, 442 S.W.3d 547, 552 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2014, pet. ref’d); see also Foreman v. State, 995 S.W.2d 854, 859 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. 

ref’d) (noting that prior cases “establish the difficulty that can arise in identifying the proper 

outcry witness, and the broad discretion of district courts in making this determination”). Under 

that standard, a trial court’s ruling will only be deemed an abuse of discretion if it is so clearly 
6

wrong as to lie outside “the zone of reasonable disagreement,” Lopez v. State, 86 S.W.3d 228, 

230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), or is “arbitrary or unreasonable,” State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435, 

439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of an 

outcry statement, appellate courts consider the evidence that was before the trial court at the time 

of its ruling. See Whitten v. State, No. 07-12-00200-CR, 2013 WL 4711198, at *5 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo Aug. 27, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). “If the trial 

court’s evidentiary ruling is correct under any applicable theory of law, it will not be disturbed 

even if the trial court gave a wrong or insufficient reason for the ruling.” Johnson v. State, 

490 S.W.3d 895, 908 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).

“The admission of inadmissible hearsay constitutes nonconstitutional error.” See 

Chapman v. State, 150 S.W.3d 809, 814 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d).

Accordingly, the error must be disregarded unless it affected a defendant’s substantial rights. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b). Any error stemming from the admission of inadmissible hearsay 

“will be considered harmless if, after examining the record as a whole, we are reasonably assured 

that the error did not influence the jury’s verdict or had but a slight effect.” Linney v. State, 

401 S.W.3d 764, 780 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d). Moreover, courts have 

consistently held that any error from the admission of an outcry witness’s testimony is harmless 

if the same evidence is admitted into evidence through other testimony without objection.

See Moody v. State, 543 S.W.3d 309, 314 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.)

(concluding that defendant was not harmed because “victim testified before the jury without 

objection to the same facts”); Gonzales v. State, 477 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2015, pet. ref’d) (determining that any error was harmless where victim provided testimony 

corroborating outcry witness’s testimony).
7

“We need not determine whether the trial court” abused its discretion by allowing 

Garcia and Paulini to testify as outcry witnesses “because we conclude that any error” would 

have been harmless. See Hernandez v. State, No. 05-12-01118-CR, 2014 WL 1178303, at *3 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 21, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). During 

the trial, B.M. and Y.M. testified extensively regarding the abuse and provided even more 

details than either of the outcry witnesses did. Cf. Gonzales, 477 S.W.3d at 479 (noting when 

explaining that error was harmless that victim “provided greater detail” than outcry witness). In 

particular, B.M. testified that Montiel entered her bedroom at night using his cellphone as a light, 

got into her bed, removed her shorts, got on top of her while she was on her back, inserted his 

penis into her vagina, and began “humping” her. Next, B.M. explained that Montiel got up from

the bed and left the room after he “finished” and that there was a sticky substance on her leg. In

addition, B.M. testified that Montiel engaged in the same conduct on other occasions but that 

she did not remember how many times. Regarding other incidents, B.M. explained that Montiel 

removed her clothing while she was in the living room and inserted his penis into her vagina and 

that he forced her to place her mouth “on his private part” when they were near the bathroom. In 

her testimony, Y.M. related that Montiel woke her up one night by putting his hand inside her 

underwear, that she felt his hand on her vagina, and that his fingers were making a circular 

motion. Further, Y.M. testified that Montiel also touched her nipple under her bra. Moreover, 

B.M. and Y.M.’s mother testified during the trial that Montiel admitted that he had sex with 

B.M., was concerned that she might “be pregnant by him,” and wanted B.M. to have an abortion 

if she was pregnant.

Additionally, recordings of the forensic interviews for B.M. and Y.M. were 

admitted into evidence during Paulini’s testimony, and Montiel stated that he had no objection to 
8

their admission and that he wanted the recordings admitted “for trial purposes.” See Rogers v. 

State, 853 S.W.2d 29, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (stating general rule “that error regarding 

improperly admitted evidence is waived if that same evidence is brought in later by the 

defendant or by the State without objection”). On the recording of B.M.’s interview, B.M. 

related that Montiel “raped” her more than one time when she was thirteen. During the

interview, B.M. also wrote down what Montiel did and specified that he “took off [her] shorts & 

underwear and got on top of [her] and raped [her].” After writing that statement, B.M. explained 

during the interview that Montiel’s “private part” “on the front part of his body” was placed

inside her “private part” and that this occurred more than once. In Y.M.’s interview, she related 

that Montiel started touching her while she was asleep on her back, that he touched her private 

area with his fingers inside her underwear, and that he touched her chest under her bra. In 

addition, when asked to show on a drawing where Montiel touched her, Y.M. pointed to the

breast area and the genital area.

Accordingly, even if the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Garcia 

and Paulini to testify as outcry witnesses, we would conclude that Montiel was not harmed. 

See Duncan v. State, 95 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d)

(determining that error in admission of outcry witness’s hearsay testimony was harmless when 

similar evidence was presented without objection through complainant, doctor, and medical 

records); see also Merrit v. State, 529 S.W.3d 549, 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, 

pet. ref’d) (observing that any error from admission of forensic interviewer’s testimony was 

harmless where police officer and complainant gave testimony that was more detailed than 

forensic interviewer’s testimony); Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) (requiring appellate courts to 

disregard nonconstitutional errors that do not affect substantial rights).
9

For these reasons, we overrule Montiel’s first issue on appeal.

Juvenile Record and Questioning the Prosecutor

In his second issue on appeal, Montiel argues that the trial court erred by denying 

his request to cross-examine B.M. regarding the contents of her juvenile record and his request to 

question the prosecutor as a material witness.

Juvenile Record

Before trial, Montiel informed the trial court that he wanted to cross-examine 

B.M. regarding her record from the Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program run by the 

Hays County Juvenile Probation Department. Montiel asserted that B.M. had been placed in the

alternative school program because of her disciplinary issues and because she had been expelled

from her prior school, that her disciplinary issues continued at the alternative program, and that 

after she had been informed that she would be suffering additional disciplinary consequences due 

to her continued misbehavior, she told school officials that Montiel had sexually abused her. 

Accordingly, Montiel urged that he should be able to cross-examine B.M. regarding her juvenile

record because it was relevant to whether she had a motive to fabricate the allegations to “take 

the heat off” herself when she told school officials about the abuse in September 2015. After 

listening to the parties’ arguments, the trial court ruled that Montiel could not cross-examine 

B.M. regarding the contents of the record because there was no logical connection between the

juvenile record and a motive to lie about Montiel.

On appeal, Montiel similarly argues that he should have been able to crossexamine B.M. regarding her juvenile record because the timing of her outcry at school as well as

the mounting trouble that she was facing supported his defensive theory that she fabricated the
10

claims to deflect attention away from her misbehavior. Moreover, Montiel highlights that the

Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals have both explained that the Confrontation 

Clause allows for the admission of evidence regarding a juvenile’s record in certain circumstances.

See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974); Irby v. State, 327 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

Under the Confrontation Clause, a defendant “shall enjoy the right . . . to be 

confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. The purpose behind the 

Clause is “to secure for the opposing party the opportunity of cross-examination because that 

is ‘the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony 

are tested.’” Johnson, 490 S.W.3d at 909 (quoting Davis, 415 U.S. at 316). The Confrontation 

Clause allows a party to attack the credibility of witnesses “or to show their possible bias, selfinterest, or motives in testifying.” Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555, 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

However, “the right to cross-examine is not unqualified.” Johnson, 490 S.W.3d 

at 909. Trial courts may limit the scope and extent of cross-examination provided that the 

limits do not infringe the guarantee of “an opportunity for effective cross-examination.” Johnson 

v. State, 433 S.W.3d 546, 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 

475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986)). Trial courts have “wide latitude” under the Confrontation Clause to 

impose limits on cross-examination for multiple reasons, including when the cross-examination 

would be “only marginally relevant.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679; see also Castle v. State, 

748 S.W.2d 230, 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (noting that “the scope of cross-examination is 

within the control of the trial court and in the exercise of its own discretion”); see also Tex. R. 

Evid. 401 (stating that evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less 

probable than it would be without the evidence” and if “the fact is of consequence in determining 

the action”). Accordingly, appellate courts review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of 
11

evidence for an abuse of discretion. Johnson, 490 S.W.3d at 908; see also id. at 909 (stating 

that trial court “can abuse [its] discretion by excluding admissible evidence that is offered by the 

defendant to demonstrate the complainant’s motive to falsely accuse him of molestation”).

“In Texas, as in most jurisdictions, juvenile criminal records and adjudications are 

not admissible to impeach the general credibility of a testifying witness, even though the juvenile 

may be on probation and is technically in a ‘vulnerable relationship’ with the State throughout 

that probationary period.” Irby, 327 S.W.3d at 147. Although the Rules of Evidence expressly 

forbid the use of these types of records, Rule 609 contains an exception explaining that this 

type of evidence may be admissible when required by the United States Constitution. See Tex. 

R. Evid. 609. When discussing the interplay between these types of evidentiary prohibitions 

and constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court stated that evidentiary rules protecting the 

confidentiality of a juvenile offender’s record cannot supplant the constitutional right to crossexamine an adverse witness for bias. Davis, 415 U.S. at 320; see also id. at 321 (Stewart, J., 

concurring) (observing that Supreme Court’s holding was based on “the circumstances of this 

case” and does not suggest “that the Constitution confers a right in every case to impeach 

the general credibility of a witness through cross-examination about his past delinquency 

adjudications”). More recently, the Court of Criminal Appeals has clarified the nature of the 

interplay by explaining that “[e]vidence that a witness is on probation, is facing pending charges, 

or has a prior juvenile record is not relevant for purposes of showing bias or a motive to 

testify absent some plausible connection between that fact and the witness’s testimony.” Irby, 

327 S.W.3d at 149.

In this case, although Montiel asserted that B.M.’s facing potential disciplinary 

actions might have motivated her to direct attention away from herself, he did not explain why 
12

she would have chosen to make false sexual-assault accusations against him. Cf. Hammer, 

296 S.W.3d at 567-69 (determining that trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence 

indicating that complainant was angry with defendant (her father) for taking her to hospital for 

sexual-assault examination after she spent night away from home because that evidence was 

strong support for defendant’s theory that she had motive to falsely accuse him of sexual abuse).

In any event, the timing of the accusation was critical, and if B.M. had motive to 

fabricate the allegations, she would have had that motive the first time that she reported the 

abuse. See Irby, 327 S.W.3d at 153. Before the trial court made its ruling regarding B.M.’s 

record, the outcry-witness hearing was held. During that hearing, evidence was presented 

demonstrating that B.M. during the summer had already told her aunt Garcia, her father, and 

other members of her family about the abuse before she mentioned the abuse to the school 

officials in September 2015. See id. at 153-54 (rejecting argument that defendant should be able 

to cross-examine victim about his juvenile deferred adjudication on theory that victim fabricated 

abuse allegations to his mother to avoid getting into trouble where victim had already told other 

people before telling his mother); see also Johnson, 490 S.W.3d at 911-13 (explaining that 

evidence that juvenile victim in sexual-abuse case had been charged with sexually assaulting 

his sister was relevant and should have been admitted, in part, because evidence showed that 

juvenile’s parents found out about his abusing his sister during “the same period of time” that 

juvenile alleged that defendant had been sexually abusing him).

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

concluding that Montiel failed to make a logical connection between B.M.’s allegations and 

her juvenile record and, therefore, by prohibiting cross-examination regarding her record as 

irrelevant. See Irby, 327 S.W.3d at 154.
13

Questioning the Prosecutor

In the next set of arguments in his second issue, Montiel contends that the trial 

court erred by denying his request to question the prosecutor in this case. During B.M.’s 

testimony, she stated that she did not tell the forensic examiner about an incident involving oral 

sex because “it’s disgusting” but that she told the prosecutor about that incident before trial. 

After B.M. made that statement, Montiel requested that he be given the opportunity to question

the prosecutor because she was a witness. The trial court denied the request. On appeal, Montiel 

argues that the trial court erred because the prosecutor was a material witness in this case. More 

specifically, Montiel highlights that B.M. made no mention of oral sex during her forensic 

interview and contends that the prosecutor was a witness to B.M.’s inconsistent statement

regarding oral sex made shortly before trial.

Because Montiel is challenging the trial court’s evidentiary ruling, we review that 

ruling for an abuse of discretion. See Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 615 (Tex. Crim. App.

2001). Allowing a party to call opposing counsel as a witness during a criminal trial “invariably 

confus[es] the distinctions between advocate and witness” and “argument and testimony.”

United States v. Schwartzbaum, 527 F.2d 249, 253 (2d Cir. 1975). For that reason, Texas law 

generally “does not permit parties to call their opposing counsel to testify as a witness.” Garrett 

v. State, No. 14-08-00413-CR, 2009 WL 2365621, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

Aug. 4, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Brown v. State, 

921 S.W.2d 227, 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Keller, J., concurring) (explaining that “[t]he 

concepts of due process and fundamental fairness require a separation between the State’s 

advocates and its witnesses”). In fact, the Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that this 

type of questioning should only be allowed where “there is no feasible alternative for obtaining 
14

and presenting the information to the jury” and where “the testimony is essential, not merely 

relevant.” Flores v. State, 155 S.W.3d 144, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (addressing State 

questioning defense counsel); Garrett 2009 WL 2365621, at *2 (explaining that same analysis is 

applied when defense counsel tries to question prosecutor).

Regarding the absence of a feasible alternative, we note that there were other

alternatives to calling the prosecutor as a witness. As set out above, Montiel was seeking to have 

the prosecutor testify about a statement made by B.M. to the prosecutor, and B.M. was testifying 

when he made the request. See Garrett, 2009 WL 2365621, at *2 (noting that defendant failed to 

meet first prong where “the complainant could have testified to the same facts that appellant 

sought to elicit from” prosecutor). Additionally, during a pretrial hearing regarding this issue, 

the State explained that there was another witness to the conversation because a victim advocate 

was present when B.M. made the statement regarding an allegation of abuse involving oral 

sex. Moreover, we do not believe that Montiel has shown that the prosecutor’s testimony was 

essential to his defense. See Flores, 155 S.W.3d at 149. During his cross-examination of B.M., 

Montiel was able to present his theory that B.M. had previously made prior statements that were 

inconsistent with the sexual abuse that she described. For example, B.M. admitted that around 

the time that the sexual abuse was allegedly occurring, she filled out a form for her alternative 

school stating that she had never been sexually assaulted or felt as though she were in danger of 

being sexually assaulted.

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Montiel’s 

request to question the prosecutor. See Garrett, 2009 WL 2365621, at *2.

For these reasons, we overrule Montiel’s second issue on appeal.
15

Prior Convictions

In his final issue on appeal, Montiel presents several related arguments 

concerning sixteen exhibits that were admitted during the punishment phase. Those exhibits 

pertained to prior convictions from Whiteside County, Illinois. The first exhibit was a copy of

the criminal history for “Reymundo Montiel Jr.,” and the remaining exhibits are judgments 

and other accompanying documents relating to prior convictions for “Reymundo Montiel Jr.”

or “Reymundo Montiel.” Four of the previous convictions were listed in the enhancement 

paragraphs of the indictment alleging that Montiel had previously been convicted of four felony 

offenses of aggravated battery, and the jury charge for the punishment phase instructed the jury 

to consider whether Montiel was previously convicted of two of those prior felony offenses when 

determining whether his punishment range should be elevated. See Tex. Penal Code § 12.42(d). 

Those prior convictions were admitted as State’s exhibits five, eight, sixteen, and seventeen.

In his first set of arguments in his final issue, Montiel contends that the exhibits 

lacked sufficient identifiers linking those convictions to him. More specifically, Montiel argues 

that some of the exhibits lacked fingerprints, photographs of the defendant, and relevant dates. 

In addition, Montiel asserts that the indictment in the current case listed his name as “Reymundo 

Montiel” but that many of the exhibits were records for “Reymundo Montiel, Jr.” Although 

Montiel mentions in this set of arguments that the exhibits should not have been admitted, his

arguments seem focused on whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s 

determination that he had previously been convicted of two felony offenses when the jury 

assessed his punishment, and the case that he primarily relies on addresses a sufficiency 

challenge to the evidence supporting the jury’s determination that enhancement allegations were 

true. See Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919, 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Accordingly, we will 
16

construe this set of arguments as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence linking Montiel to 

the prior felony convictions listed as enhancement allegations. See Bridges v. State, No. 02-06-

00418-CR, 2007 WL 2693902, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 13, 2007, pet. ref’d) (mem.

op., not designated for publication).

When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view all the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether any rational trier of fact could 

have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 

319 (1979); Stahmann v. State, 602 S.W.3d 573, 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). In making this 

determination, “[w]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and consider all 

of the admitted evidence, regardless of whether it was properly admitted.” Stahmann, 602 S.W.3d

at 577. “The jury is the sole judge of credibility and weight to be attached to the testimony of 

the witnesses.” Id. “Juries can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence so long as each 

inference is supported by the evidence produced at trial,” id., and are “free to apply common 

sense, knowledge, and experience gained in the ordinary affairs of life in drawing reasonable 

inferences from the evidence,” Eustis v. State, 191 S.W.3d 879, 884 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d).

“To establish that a defendant has been convicted of a prior offense, the State 

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a prior conviction exists, and (2) the defendant 

is linked to that conviction.” Flowers, 220 S.W.3d at 921. “No specific document or mode of 

proof is required to prove these two elements.” Id. “While evidence of a certified copy of a final 

judgment and sentence may be a preferred and convenient means, the State may prove both of 

these elements in a number of different ways,” including through the defendant’s stipulation 

or admission, through testimony by a person who observed the defendant being convicted and 
17

can identify the defendant as the person previously convicted, or through documentary proof

that contains sufficient information to establish the existence of the prior conviction and the 

defendant’s identity as the person previously convicted. Id.

Links to the defendant can be shown through different means, including allowing 

the jury to compare photographs with the appearance of the defendant at trial or compare 

identifying information such as names, sexes, heights, eye colors, and dates of birth. See 

Williams v. State, 946 S.W.2d 886, 895 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.). “A prior conviction 

can be proven by the introduction of the ‘pen packet,’ which is the file from the penitentiary 

where the defendant was an inmate and which contains the record of the inmate’s prior 

conviction,” provided that the pen packet not only proves the existence of a conviction but also 

links the conviction to the defendant. Bridges, 2007 WL 2693902, at *3. Provided that the proof 

of identity is sufficient, no error will be found on appeal. Littles v. State, 726 S.W.2d 26, 32 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

Before the exhibits mentioned above were admitted into evidence, the trial court

admitted as an exhibit the booking sheet for the offenses at issue in this case. The booking sheet, 

like the indictment, lists the name “Reymundo Montiel.” The booking sheet also lists Montiel’s 

date of birth and social security number and includes a physical description of him. In addition, 

the booking sheet contains Montiel’s fingerprints; identifies his alias as Reymundo Montiel, Jr.;

and bears Montiel’s signature, which he signed as “Reymundo Montiel, Jr.” The booking sheet

also contains photographs of Montiel.

As set out above, the judgments and accompanying documents corresponding to 

the enhancement allegations were admitted into evidence through State’s exhibits five, eight, 

sixteen, and seventeen. Those exhibits and others were admitted through the testimony of 
18

Grantham, who was an investigator for the district attorney and who had received training in 

fingerprint identification. The exhibits all contain a certification from the circuit clerk for

Whiteside County, Illinois, stating that she is the keeper of records for the court and that the 

documents are “true and correct” copies of the documents related to the prior convictions. Cf. 

Flowers, 220 S.W.3d at 921 (noting that certified copies of final judgment and sentence is “a 

preferred and convenient” way of proving prior conviction).

State’s exhibit eight contains a complaint and judgment of conviction for 

“Reymundo Montiel” for the offense of aggravated battery. In the plea paperwork for that 

offense, the defendant signed his name as “Reymundo Montiel Jr.” as Montiel did in the booking 

sheet in this case. Although the exhibit did not include the date of birth for the defendant, it 

did list the date of the defendant’s conviction and the defendant’s age when he was convicted. 

State’s exhibit seventeen contains a complaint and judgment of conviction for the offense of 

aggravated battery for “Reymundo . . . Montiel Jr.” The name appearing on the paperwork and 

judgment is “Reymundo Montiel,” but the signature on the plea paperwork is for “Reymundo 

Montiel Jr.” The date of birth listed in the exhibit is the same as Montiel’s as it appears in the

booking sheet for this case. State’s exhibit sixteen contains a complaint, plea paperwork, and 

judgment of conviction for “Reymundo Montiel” for the offense of aggravated battery. The

exhibit lists the defendant’s date of birth as being the same as Montiel’s. State’s exhibit five 

contains, among other documents, a complaint and a judgment of conviction for aggravated 

battery for “Reymundo . . . Montiel, Jr.” and specifies that the defendant’s date of birth is the 

same as Montiel’s.

In addition to the exhibits discussed above, the trial court admitted other exhibits 

during Grantham’s testimony that helped link Montiel to the four prior felony convictions.
19

One of those exhibits was State’s exhibit two, which is an Illinois criminal history that lists all 

known convictions for a defendant named Reymundo Montiel, Jr., with the same date of birth 

as Montiel’s. The circuit clerk certified that the computer printout is “a true and correct copy of 

the original document as the same appears in the records on file in my office.” Cf. id. at 925 

(determining that “a certified copy of a computer printout” from trial court setting out prior 

conviction “was sufficient” when considered in conjunction with another exhibit “to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of” prior conviction). In his testimony, Grantham 

explained that the four prior aggravated-battery convictions discussed above were listed in the

criminal history and that each of the four entries for those convictions separately listed a date of 

birth for the defendant, that the dates of birth were all the same, and that Montiel has the same 

date of birth.

Another linking exhibit was State’s exhibit four, which is a pen packet for a 

conviction for “Reymundo Montiel, Jr.” Although the entire exhibit was not certified by the 

circuit clerk, the judgment included in the pen packet contains a certification from the circuit 

clerk stating that the judgment is “a true and correct copy of the original document as the same 

appears in the records on file in my office,” and the pen packet reflects that it was prepared by 

the record supervisor for a correctional center in Illinois. The date of birth and social security 

number listed in the exhibit are the same as Montiel’s. The exhibit also contains photographs 

and a physical description of the defendant and a fingerprint card of the defendant’s fingerprints. 

While testifying, Grantham explained that he had received training in fingerprint identification, 

compared the fingerprints from Montiel’s booking sheet with the fingerprints in State’s exhibit 

four, and had no doubt that the fingerprints belonged to the same person. Further, Grantham 

testified that the photographs from Montiel’s booking sheet and from State’s exhibit four 
20

appeared to be photos of Montiel. Additionally, Grantham related that the offense pertaining to 

the pen packet was listed in the criminal history from Illinois.

Given our standard of review and considering the reasonable inferences that the 

jury could have made from this evidence, we conclude that the jury could have reasonably 

inferred that the individual who is the subject of the four prior aggravated-battery convictions 

was Montiel and, accordingly, that the evidence is legally sufficient to link Montiel to the felony 

convictions identified in State’s exhibits five, eight, sixteen, and seventeen. See id.

To the extent that Montiel is asserting in this issue that the trial court erred by 

admitting all sixteen exhibits because they were not properly authenticated, we cannot sustain 

this appellate complaint. Appellate courts review a trial court’s decision regarding the admission 

of evidence over an authentication objection under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Hunter

v. State, 513 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). The authentication

of evidence is a condition precedent to the admissibility of the evidence. See Tex. R. Evid. 901(a);

Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Under the Rules of Evidence, the

proponent must “make a threshold showing that would be ‘sufficient to support a finding that the

matter in question is what its proponent claims.’” Tienda, 358 S.W.3d at 638 (quoting Tex. R. 

Evid. 901(a)). Whether the proponent has crossed the evidentiary threshold is a preliminary 

determination for the trial court, but the jury must determine whether the “item of evidence

is what its proponent claims.” Tienda, 358 S.W.3d at 638. “The preliminary question for the 

trial court to decide is simply whether the proponent of the evidence has supplied facts that

are sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination that the evidence he has proffered is 

authentic.” Id.
21

“Rules of Evidence 901 and 902 govern the authentication requirement.” Jones v. 

State, 572 S.W.3d 841, 848 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.). Rule 901 sets

out a non-exhaustive list of examples of the types of extrinsic evidence that will satisfy the 

authentication requirements. Tex. R. Evid. 901(b). For example, Rule 901 allows evidence to 

be authenticated through expert testimony comparing the evidence with another specimen. 

Id. R. 901(b)(3). 

In contrast, Rule 902 identifies certain types of evidence that are selfauthenticating and do not need extrinsic evidence of authenticity. Id. R. 902. “A document may 

be authenticated under either Texas Rule of Evidence 901 or 902 and need not be authenticated 

under both.” Jones, 572 S.W.3d at 848. “[M]eeting the requirements of one part of Rule 902 

establishes the documents are self-authenticated.” Id. Rule of Evidence 902 allows for selfauthentication of copies of “an official record—or a copy of a document that was recorded or 

filed in a public office as authorized by law” if the copy is certified as correct by the custodian or 

another person authorized to make the certification. Tex. R. Evid. 902(4). The Rules define 

“record” to include “a memorandum, report, or data compilation.” Id. R. 101(h)(4).

Except State’s exhibit two, which is the criminal history, and State’s exhibit four, 

which is a pen packet, the remaining exhibits contain certified copies of judgments and other 

accompanying documents for prior offenses committed by an individual with Montiel’s first 

and last name in Whiteside County, Illinois. The certifications were made by the circuit clerk, 

contained her and her deputy clerk’s signatures, and specified that she is the “keeper of the 

records, files[,] and seal” and that the judgments of conviction along with other accompanying 

documents were “true and correct” copies.
22

By certifying that she was the “keeper” of the original files, the clerk 

demonstrated that she was a “custodian” of those records as contemplated by Rule of Evidence

902. See id. R. 902(4); Jones, 572 S.W.3d at 849. Moreover, the circuit clerk certified that the 

documents in the exhibits were “true and correct” copies of the criminal records as required by 

Rule 902. See Tex. R. Evid. 902(4). Accordingly, the trial court would not have abused its 

discretion by determining that the fourteen exhibits met the requirements of Rule 902. See id. 

R. 101(h)(4), 902(4); Jones, 572 S.W.3d at 849.

As discussed previously, the first exhibit was a criminal history compilation for

“Montiel, Reymundo Jr.,” and listed convictions for that individual from Illinois. The exhibit

contains a certification from the same circuit clerk who was the custodian of the records listed 

above stating that the clerk “hereby certif[ies] the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of the 

original document as the same appears in the records on file in my office.” Moreover, this 

exhibit is a compilation of the offenses set out in the exhibits above. Based on this record, the

trial court would not have abused its discretion by determining that this exhibit also met the 

requirements of Rule 902 and was self-authenticating under that rule. Cf. Flowers, 220 S.W.3d

at 922-23 (noting that “[a] computer-generated compilation of information setting out the specifics

of a criminal conviction that is certified as correct by the county or district clerk of the court in 

which the conviction was obtained is admissible” as self-authenticating under Rule 902).

Regarding State’s exhibit four, that exhibit does not contain the type of 

certification described above. Instead, the exhibit included a letter from the record supervisor 

from a correctional facility in Illinois stating that the pen packet contained the requested 

information pertaining to Montiel, but the exhibit also included a judgment with a certification 

from the circuit clerk stating that the judgment was a true and correct copy of the judgment 
23

from the records in her office. Cf. Jones, 572 S.W.3d at 849 (concluding that pen packets from 

another state were self-authenticating). In any event, exhibit four contained photographs of the 

defendant that could be compared with the photographs from Montiel’s booking sheet and with 

his appearance at trial, and Grantham explained that the fingerprints contained in exhibit four 

and in Montiel’s booking sheet were from the same person. See Reed v. State, 811 S.W.2d 582, 

587 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (determining that authenticity of pen packet was “corroborated by the

testimony of the State’s expert witness who stated that the fingerprints from the fingerprint card

in the pen packet and the fingerprints taken from the appellant on the morning of the punishment 

hearing were made by the same individual, the appellant”); Cooks v. State, No. 05-02-01809-CR, 

2004 WL 42612, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 9, 2004, no pet.) (op., not designated for 

publication) (concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of

prior conviction where each exhibit contained certified copy of judgment and where fingerprint

expert testified that fingerprints in exhibits and defendant’s known fingerprints were same). 

Accordingly, the trial court would not have abused its discretion by concluding that the exhibit

was sufficiently authenticated consistent with Rule of Evidence 901. See Tex. R. Evid. 901; 

Reed, 811 S.W.2d at 587.

In this issue, Montiel also contends that the trial court erred by allowing 

Grantham to testify as an expert on fingerprint identification. Under Rule 702, a trial court 

may admit expert testimony “if the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge 

will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Tex. R. 

Evid. 702. Before a witness may testify as an expert, the trial court must make three separate

inquiries: (1) is the witness qualified “as an expert by reason of his knowledge, skill, experience, 

or education”; (2) is “the subject matter of the testimony . . . an appropriate one for expert 
24

testimony”; and (3) would “admitting the expert testimony . . . actually assist the fact-finder in 

deciding the case.” Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Tex. Crim App. 2006) (quoting Rodgers 

v. State, 205 S.W.3d 525, 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). “These conditions are commonly 

referred to as (1) qualification, (2) reliability, and (3) relevance.” Id. Appellate courts review

a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of scientific expert testimony under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. See Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

During the hearing addressing the admissibility of Grantham’s testimony, Montiel 

limited his arguments to Grantham’s qualifications, and his arguments on appeal are similarly 

aimed at his qualifications. Accordingly, in resolving this issue, we need not address the reliability

and relevancy prongs. See Turner v. State, 252 S.W.3d 571, 584 n.5 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d) (determining that objection to expert witness’s qualifications did not 

preserve for appellate review claim that expert opinion was scientifically unreliable); see also 

Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871, 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining that fingerprint 

comparison testimony is generally admissible under Rule 702 “because it is reliable and it assists 

the trier of fact in its task of determining whether” fingerprint is that of particular person).

Before the trial court made its ruling, Grantham explained that he is an 

investigator and that his job requires him to collect judgments from other jurisdictions and 

to compare sets of fingerprints. In addition, Grantham testified that he is certified in basic 

fingerprint identification by the Texas District and County Attorneys Association. Although 

Grantham agreed that the Association is an advocacy group and that he did not receive his 

certification through the Department of Public Safety or the FBI, he related that he is qualified as 

a fingerprint-identification expert for ink comparisons, that he received his training from the

fingerprint expert for the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office, and that the expert certified him. Cf. 
25

Dominguez v. State, No. 08-13-00143-CR, 2015 WL 1137742, at *4 (Tex. App.—El Paso 

Mar. 11, 2015, no pet.) (op., not designated for publication) (observing that certification from

FBI is not required to testify as fingerprint expert); see also Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 27 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (upholding trial court’s ruling allowing witness to testify even though 

witness was not “licensed” because witness had specialized knowledge from education and 

practical experience). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

by determining that Grantham was qualified to testify as an expert on fingerprint identification.

For these reasons, we overrule Montiel’s third issue on appeal.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled all of Montiel’s issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgments of conviction.

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith

Affirmed

Filed: May 21, 2021

Do Not Publish